We Keep Coding

Optimizing mathematical formula implementation with concatenations of summations

I'm trying to implement this following formula in Python. It's basically a long concatenation os summations, where an additional summation is added each time a new 'element' is needed. To simply explain the formula's structure, here's how this formula goes in order from 2 to 5 elements:
2 elements
3 elements
4 elements
5 elements
By the way, here's the g function shown in the formulas:
g function
Now, I foolishly tried coding this formula with my extremely barebones python programming skills. The initial goal was to try this with 15 elements, but given that it contained a lot of nested for loops and factorials, I quickly noticed that I could not really obtain a result from that.
At the end I ended up with this monstrous code, that would finish just after the heat death of the universe:
from ast import Str
import math
pNuevos = [0,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,2,2,1,2,2,1,1]
pTotales = [0,10,10,7,8,7,7,7,7,7,10,7,8,7,8,8]
def PTirada (personajes):
tirada = 0.05/personajes
return tirada
def Ppers1 (personajes, intentos):
p1pers = ((math.factorial(intentos-1)) / ((math.factorial(4))*(math.factorial(intentos-5)))) * (PTirada(personajes)**5) * ((1-PTirada(personajes))**(intentos-5))
return p1pers
def Ppers2 (personajes, intentos):
p2pers = 0
for i in range(10,intentos+1):
p2pers = p2pers + ( (math.factorial(intentos-1)) / ((math.factorial(4))*(math.factorial(i-5))*(math.factorial(intentos-i))) ) * (PTirada(personajes)**i) * ((1 - 2*(PTirada(personajes))) **(intentos-i))
p2pers = 2*p2pers
return p2pers
def Activate (z) :
probability1 = 0
probability2 = 0
probability3 = 0
probability4 = 0
probability5 = 0
probability6 = 0
probability7 = 0
probability8 = 0
probability9 = 0
probability10 = 0
probability11 = 0
probability12 = 0
probability13 = 0
probability14 = 0
for i in range (5*pNuevos[1], z-5*pNuevos[2]+1):
for j in range (5*pNuevos[2], z-i-5*pNuevos[3]+1):
for k in range (5*pNuevos[3], z-j-i-5*pNuevos[4]+1):
for l in range (5*pNuevos[4], z-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[5]+1):
for m in range (5*pNuevos[5], z-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[6]+1):
for n in range (5*pNuevos[6], z-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[7]+1):
for o in range (5*pNuevos[7], z-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[8]+1):
for p in range (5*pNuevos[8], z-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[9]+1):
for q in range (5*pNuevos[9], z-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[10]+1):
for r in range (5*pNuevos[10], z-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[11]+1):
for s in range (5*pNuevos[11], z-r-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[12]+1):
for t in range (5*pNuevos[12], z-s-r-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[13]+1):
for u in range (5*pNuevos[13], z-t-s-r-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[14]+1):
for v in range (5*pNuevos[14], z-u-t-s-r-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[15]+1):
probability14 = probability14 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[14])+"("+str(pTotales[14])+","+str(v)+")") * eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[15])+"("+str(pTotales[15])+","+str(z-v-u-t-s-r-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i)+")")
probability13 = probability13 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[13])+"("+str(pTotales[13])+","+str(u)+")") * probability14
probability12 = probability12 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[12])+"("+str(pTotales[12])+","+str(t)+")") * probability13
probability11 = probability11 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[11])+"("+str(pTotales[11])+","+str(s)+")") * probability12
probability10 = probability10 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[10])+"("+str(pTotales[10])+","+str(r)+")") * probability11
probability9 = probability9 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[9])+"("+str(pTotales[9])+","+str(q)+")") * probability10
probability8 = probability8 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[8])+"("+str(pTotales[8])+","+str(p)+")") * probability9
probability7 = probability7 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[7])+"("+str(pTotales[7])+","+str(o)+")") * probability8
probability6 = probability6 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[6])+"("+str(pTotales[6])+","+str(n)+")") * probability7
probability5 = probability5 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[5])+"("+str(pTotales[5])+","+str(m)+")") * probability6
probability4 = probability4 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[4])+"("+str(pTotales[4])+","+str(l)+")") * probability5
probability3 += eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[3]) + "("+str(pTotales[3])+","+str(k)+")") * probability4
probability2 += eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[2]) + "("+str(pTotales[2])+","+str(j)+")") * probability3
probability1 += eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[1]) + "("+str(pTotales[1])+","+str(i)+")") * probability2
return probability1
print (str(Activate(700)))
Edit: Alright I think it would be helpful to explain a couple things:
-First of all, I was trying to find ways the code could run faster, as I'm aware the nested for loops are a performance hog. I was also hoping there would be a way to optimize so many factorial operations.
-Also, the P(A) function described in the g function represents the probability of an event happening, which is already in the code, in the first function from the top.
There's also the function f in the formula, which is just a simplification of the function g for specific cases.
The function f is the second function in the code, whereas g is the third function in the code.
I will try to find a way to simplify the multiple summations, and thanks for the tip of not using eval()!
I'm sorry again for not specifying the question more, and for that mess of code also.

I would expect to break it down with something like this:
def main():
A = 0.5
m = 10
result = g(A, m)
return
def sigma(k, m):
''' function to deal with the sum loop'''
for k in range(10, m+1):
# the bits in the formula
pass
return
def g(A, m):
''' function to deal with g '''
k=10
return 2 * sigma(k,m)
if __name__=='__main__':
''' This is executed when run from the command line '''
main()
Or alternatively to do similar with classes.
I expect you also need a function for p(A) and one for factorials.

issue with converting rate equation to python code

I am trying to convert these rate equations to python code, I have made I lot of research but can't seem to get any clear path to follow to achieve this, please any help will be appreciated
This is a newly updated code....i wrote using the quide from Tom10.....please what do you think?
import numpy as np
# import numpy as sum # not necessary, just for convenience, and replaces the builtin
# set N_core value
N_CORE = 0
# set the initial conditions appropriately (you need to set these correctly)
N = np.ones(8)
r = np.ones((8, 8))
dN = np.zeros(8) # the value here is not important for your equations
# set constant for equation 1
R_P1abs37 = 20
F_P1 = 20
R_P1abs47 = 40
W_3317 = 1.0
# set constant for equation 2
W_6142 = 90
W_5362 = 80
# Set you constants appropriately for equation 3
R_P2abs35 = 30
F_P2 = 40
R_L2se34 = 50
F_L2 = 90
# equation 4 constants
W_2214 = 20
#equation 5 constants
R_P1abs13 = 30
R_L2se32 = 20
F_L1 = 10
# equation 1 formular
dN[7] =sum(r[7,:]*N[7]) + (R_P1abs37*F_P1) + (R_P1abs47*F_P1) + (W_3317*N[3]**2)
# equation 2 formular
dN[6] = (r[7,6]*N[7]) - sum(r[6,:]*N[6]) - (W_6142*N[6]*N[1]) + (W_5362*N[5]*N[3])
#equation 3 formular
dN[5] = sum(r[:,5]*N) - sum(r[5,:]*N[5]) + R_P2abs35*F_P2 - R_L2se34*F_L2 - W_5362*N[5]*N[3]
# equation 4 formular
dN[4] = sum(r[:,4]*N) - sum(r[4,:]*N[4]) - (R_P1abs47*F_P1) + (R_L2se34*F_L2) + (W_2214*N[2]**2)+ (W_6142*N[6]*N[1])
#equation 5 formular
dN[3] = sum(r[:,3]*N) - sum(r[3,:]*N[3]) + (R_P1abs13*F_P1) - (R_P1abs37*F_P1) - (R_P2abs35*F_P2)
-(R_L2se32*F_L1) - ((2*W_3317)*N[3]**2) - (W_5362*N[5]*N[3])
#equation 6 formular
dN[2] = sum(r[:,2]*N) - (r[2,1]*N[2]) + (R_L2se32*F_L1) - ((2*W_2214)*N[2]**2) + (W_6142*N[6]*N[1])+(W_5362*N[5]*N[3])
#equation 7 formular
dN[1] = sum(r[:,1] * N) - (R_P1abs13*F_P1) + (W_2214*N[2]**2) + (W_3317+N[3]**2) - (W_6142+N[6]*N[1])
#equation for N CORE
N_CORE = sum(dN)
print(N_CORE)

Here is list of relevant issues based on your question and comments:
Usually if the summation is over i, then everything without an i subscript is constant for that sum. (Mathematically these constant terms can just be brought out of the sum; so the first equation is a bit odd where the N_7 could be moved out of the sum but I think they're keeping it in to show the symmetry with the other equations which all have an r*N term).
The capitol sigma symbol (Σ) means you need to do a sum, which you can do in a loop, but both Python list and numpy have a sum function. Numpy has the additional advantage that multiplication is interpreted as multiplication of the individual elements, making the expression easier. So for a[0]*[b0] + a[1]*b[1] + a[2]*b[2] and numpy arrays is simply sum(a*b) and for Python lists it's sum([a[i]*b[i] for in range(len(a))]
Therefore using numpy, the setup and your third equation would look like:
import numpy as np
import numpy.sum as sum # not necessary, just for convenience, and replaces the builtin
# set the initial conditions appropriately (you need to set these correctly)
N = np.ones(7, dtype=np.float)
# r seems to be a coupling matrix, and should be set according to your system
r = np.ones((7, 7), dtype = np.float)
# the values for dN are not important for your equations because dN only appears on the left side of the equations, so we just make a place to store the results
dN = np.zeros(7, dtype=np.float)
# Set you constants appropriate.y
R_P2abs35 = 1.0
F_P2 = 1.0
R_L2se34 = 1.0
F_L2 = 1.0
W_5362 = 1.0
dN[5] = sum(r[:,5]*N) - sum(r[5,:]*N[5]) + R_P2abs35*F_P2 - R_L2se34*F_L2 - W_5362*N[5]*N[3]
Note that although the expressions in the sums look similar, the first is essentially a dot product between two vectors and the second is a scalar times a vector so N[5] could be taken out of the sum (but I left it there to match the equation).
Final note: I see you're new to S.O. so I thought it would be helpful if I answered this question for you. In the future, please show some attempt at the code -- it really helps a lot.

using jacobi method to solve laplace equation PYTHON

I am fairly new to python and am trying to recreate the electric potential in a metal box using the laplace equation and the jacobi method. I have written a code that seems to work initially, however I am getting the error: IndexError: index 8 is out of bounds for axis 0 with size 7 and can not figure out why. any help would be awesome!
from visual import*
from visual.graph import*
import numpy as np
lenx = leny = 7
delta = 2
vtop = [-1,-.67,-.33,.00,.33,.67,1]
vbottom = [-1,-.67,-.33,.00,.33,.67,1]
vleft = -1
vright = 1
vguess= 0
x,y = np.meshgrid(np.arange(0,lenx), np.arange(0,leny))
v = np.empty((lenx,leny))
v.fill(vguess)
v[(leny-1):,:] = vtop
v [:1,:] = vbottom
v[:,(lenx-1):] = vright
v[:,:1] = vleft
maxit = 500
for iteration in range (0,maxit):
for i in range(1,lenx):
for j in range(1,leny-1):
v[i,j] = .25*(v[i+i][j] + v[i-1][j] + v[i][j+1] + v[i][j-1])
print v

Just from a quick glance at your code it seems as though the indexing error is happening at this part and can be changed accordingly:
# you had v[i+i][j] instead if v[i+1][j]
v[i,j] = .25*(v[i+1][j] + v[i-1][j] + v[i][j+1] + v[i][j-1])
You simply added and extra i to your indexing which would have definitely been out of range

Python: Fourth Order Runge-Kutta Method

from math import sin
from numpy import arange
from pylab import plot,xlabel,ylabel,show
def answer():
print('Part a:')
print(low(x,t))
print('First Graph')
print('')
def low(x,t):
return 1/RC * (V_in - V_out)
a = 0.0
b = 10.0
N = 1000
h = (b-a)/N
RC = 0.01
V_out = 0.0
tpoints = arange(a,b,h)
xpoints = []
x = 0.0
for t in tpoints:
xpoints.append(x)
k1 = h*f(x,t)
k2 = h*f(x+0.5*k1,t+0.5*h)
k3 = h*f(x+0.5*k2,t+0.5*h)
k4 = h*f(x+k3,t+h)
x += (k1+2*k2+2*k3+k4)/6
plot(tpoints,xpoints)
xlabel("t")
ylabel("x(t)")
show()
So I have the fourth order runge kutta method coded but the part I'm trying to fit in is where the problem say V_in(t) = 1 if [2t] is even or -1 if [2t] is odd.
Also the I'm not sure if I'm suppose to return this equation:
return 1/RC * (V_in - V_out)
Here is the problem:
Problem 8.1
It would be greatly appreciated if you help me out!

So I have the fourth order runge kutta method coded but the part I'm trying to fit in is where the problem say V_in(t) = 1 if [2t] is even or -1 if [2t] is odd.
You are treating V_in as a constant. The problem says that it's a function. So one solution is to make it a function! It's a very simple function to write:
def dV_out_dt(V_out, t) :
return (V_in(t) - V_out)/RC
def V_in(t) :
if math.floor(2.0*t) % 2 == 0 :
return 1
else :
return -1
You don't need or want that if statement in the definition of V_in(t). A branch inside of a loop is expensive, and this function will be called many times from inside a loop. There's a simple way to avoid that if statement.
def V_in(t) :
return 1 - 2*(math.floor(2.0*t) % 2)
This function is so small that you can fold it into the derivative function:
def dV_out_dt(V_out, t) :
return ((1 - 2*(math.floor(2.0*t) % 2)) - V_out)/RC

The function should look something like this:
def f(x,t):
V_out = x
n = floor(2*t)
V_in = (1==n%2)? -1 : 1
return 1/RC * (V_in - V_out)

Leibniz formula for π - Is this any good? (Python)

I'm doing an exercise that asks for a function that approximates the value of pi using Leibniz' formula. These are the explanations on Wikipedia:
Logical thinking comes to me easily, but I wasn't given much of a formal education in maths, so I'm a bit lost as to what the leftmost symbols in the second one represent. I tried to make the code pi = ( (-1)**n / (2*n + 1) ) * 4, but that returned 1.9999990000005e-06 instead of 3.14159..., so I used an accumulator pattern instead (since the chapter of the guide that this was in mentions them as well) and it worked fine. However, I can't help thinking that it's somewhat contrived and there's probably a better way to do it, given Python's focus on simplicity and making programmes as short as possible. This is the full code:
def myPi(n):
denominator = 1
addto = 1
for i in range(n):
denominator = denominator + 2
addto = addto - (1/denominator)
denominator = denominator + 2
addto = addto + (1/denominator)
pi = addto * 4
return(pi)
print(myPi(1000000))
Does anyone know a better function?

The Leibniz formula translates directly into Python with no muss or fuss:
>>> steps = 1000000
>>> sum((-1.0)**n / (2.0*n+1.0) for n in reversed(range(steps))) * 4
3.1415916535897934

The capital sigma here is sigma notation. It is notation used to represent a summation in concise form.
So your sum is actually an infinite sum. The first term, for n=0, is:
(-1)**0/(2*0+1)
This is added to
(-1)**1/(2*1+1)
and then to
(-1)**2/(2*2+1)
and so on for ever. The summation is what is known mathematically as a convergent sum.
In Python you would write it like this:
def estimate_pi(terms):
result = 0.0
for n in range(terms):
result += (-1.0)**n/(2.0*n+1.0)
return 4*result
If you wanted to optimise a little, you can avoid the exponentiation.
def estimate_pi(terms):
result = 0.0
sign = 1.0
for n in range(terms):
result += sign/(2.0*n+1.0)
sign = -sign
return 4*result
....
>>> estimate_pi(100)
3.1315929035585537
>>> estimate_pi(1000)
3.140592653839794

Using pure Python you can do something like:
def term(n):
return ( (-1.)**n / (2.*n + 1.) )*4.
def pi(nterms):
return sum(map(term,range(nterms)))
and then calculate pi with the number of terms you need to reach a given precision:
pi(100)
# 3.13159290356
pi(1000)
# 3.14059265384

The following version uses Ramanujan's formula as outlined in this SO post - it uses a relation between pi and the "monster group", as discussed in this article.
import math
def Pi(x):
Pi = 0
Add = 0
for i in range(x):
Add =(math.factorial(4*i) * (1103 + 26390*i))/(((math.factorial(i))**4)*(396**(4*i)))
Pi = Pi + (((math.sqrt(8))/(9801))*Add)
Pi = 1/Pi
print(Pi)
Pi(100)

This was my approach:
def estPi(terms):
outPut = 0.0
for i in range (1, (2 * terms), 4):
outPut = (outPut + (1/i) - (1/(i+2)))
return 4 * outPut
I take in the number of terms the user wants, then in the for loop I double it to account for only using odds.
at 100 terms I get 3.1315929035585537
at 1000 terms I get 3.140592653839794
at 10000 terms I get 3.1414926535900345
at 100000 terms I get 3.1415826535897198
at 1000000 terms I get 3.1415916535897743
at 10000000 terms I get 3.1415925535897915
at 100000000 terms I get 3.141592643589326
at 1000000000 terms I get 3.1415926525880504
Actual Pi is 3.1415926535897932
Got to love a convergent series.

def myPi(iters):
pi = 0
sign = 1
denominator = 1
for i in range(iters):
pi = pi + (sign/denominator)
# alternating between negative and positive
sign = sign * -1
denominator = denominator + 2
pi = pi * 4.0
return pi
pi_approx = myPi(10000)
print(pi_approx)

old thread, but i wanted to stuff around with this and coincidentally i came up with pretty much the same as user3220980
# gregory-leibnitz
# pi acurate to 8 dp in around 80 sec
# pi to 5 dp in .06 seconds
import time
start_time = time.time()
pi = 4 # start at 4
times = 100000000
for i in range(3,times,4):
pi -= (4/i) + (4/(i + 2))
print(pi)
print("{} seconds".format(time.time() - start_time))